SoVote

Jun/20/22 11:37:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, honestly, I got married in 1990. This bill was passed in 1991, a year after I got married. Today, when we celebrate, we take a video that we can post online and on WhatsApp. The key thing is that it is time for us because the content developers are developing Canadian content at a much faster rate. That needs to be acknowledged and fairly compensated.

67 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/20/22 11:37:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-7

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Preclearance Act, 2016.

53 words

All Topics

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.)

Jun/20/22 11:38:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, it has been very interesting to take part in tonight's discussion and hear the different views expressed. I am happy to have what I believe will be the last word tonight on the matter, on Bill C-11. At the heart of it is culture and questions around culture. That is the way we make sense of ourselves and our place in the world as individuals and also as members of communities on a local level and on a national level as Canadians. In this, storytelling is particularly key. I would add storytelling by artists plays a special role as well. If there is such a thing as Canadian identity, and I believe there is, our artists have helped to shape it. They have played a fundamental role and continue to do so. If we think about music, can we tell the Canadian story without looking at The Guess Who, for example, or The Tragically Hip? What about television? Murdoch Mysteries comes to mind, for example, and North of 60. We can name a number of other Canadian programs. My father would always talk about The Beachcombers, which I am not too familiar with, but it looks as though the Speaker is. If we think of film, there is Bon Cop Bad Cop. There are other good examples as well, but that one stands out for a number of members. Talent explains why each of these became a success. The talent of the producers involved, the artists themselves, the musicians, the actors and all those around is at the top of the list for sure. Another factor that is key to their success is the fact we have a system in Canada that promotes Canadian culture and recognizes the importance of it. As a condition of their licences, Canadian television and radio broadcasting companies have needed to ensure a space for Canadian content. In Canada, we have the CanCon rules, or the Canadian content rules, where 40% of radio content, for example, must include content of Canadians, and 55% of television content must be Canadian. Radio and television companies also need to pay into the Canada Media Fund. We have had this system in place for decades. This has long been expected of radio and television companies. On top of that, there is also the fact they have had to pay into the Canada Media Fund. That is an important point to recognize as well. Here is why Bill C-11 matters. What has been expected of Canadian radio and television organizations for decades would now be expected of streaming organizations such as Netflix, YouTube and Spotify, for example. We need to recognize this is 2022. The last time the Broadcasting Act was modernized was in 1991. I was in Mrs. Bryne's grade 4 class sitting next to my friends Rob DeVries, Sarah Wuerth and Julie Hearn. Members will not know those names, but those I just mentioned, who were part of those classes, will know what that means exactly and how far back we go. That was grade 4. We have not updated our regulations since then, and we need to. We need to recognize where we are in Canada's trajectory or how we have evolved as a society. Streaming organizations now play a fundamental role, even more important than radio and television, in terms of content creation. When we talk about our storytellers we look to YouTube, Netflix and Spotify. They play a very important role in that regard. Recognizing this, the bill puts forward measures in an according fashion so we can keep up and continue to support our artists. The alternative, which I know is favoured by my friends in the opposition, is to allow the free market to reign and allow every individual Canadian artist to compete on their own merits, but to put them up against the mammoth that is the American entertainment industry. I truly believe in this, and this should not even be a debate. In fact, if we go back to The Tragically Hip, which I mentioned before, its members themselves have made the argument that, were it not for CanCon rules, their success would not have been seen. This is because they would have been up against Pearl Jam and Nirvana. They would have been up against Radiohead, and we can name other examples, on their own, but they were given supports to be on the radio and be promoted in that way. I mentioned a few television series before. Those Canadian programs that are a signature of Canadian culture were supported by the CanCon rules. For all those reasons, we have to look to our past and learn from it, but also modernize and keep up with the times. Bill C-11 does that by ensuring that streaming organizations do their fair share to ensure a level playing field, support Canadian artists and pay into the Canada media fund. These are not unreasonable expectations of organizations such as Netflix, YouTube and so on, which are doing so well. Obviously, if they are benefiting, they can do their part to support Canadian culture and cultural production in Canada.

863 words

All Topics

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Jun/20/22 11:44:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, one of the important aspects of this bill is ensuring that web giants pay their fair share and that money is there for our cultural workers and the Canadian broadcasters that have not been on a level playing field. Unfortunately, the big web giants still do not actually pay their fair share. There is a need for a digital services tax. The Liberal government has been delaying implementing legislation on a digital services tax, and I am curious if the member would speak to his commitment to ensuring that the web giants truly pay their fair share.

99 words

All Topics

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

Jun/20/22 11:45:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, every company has to pay their fair share. I look forward to engaging more with NDP members, as I think all members on this side of the aisle do, on that matter to get their thoughts. I know where they stand, but let us collaborate, let us listen and let us work toward a fair playing environment, if I can put it that way, in terms of the digital creators the member is so concerned about. Here, we are talking about Bill C-11. It is a good bill. I know the NDP supports it, and I appreciate that.

101 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/20/22 11:45:48 p.m.
Watch

Before we close, I just want to say that as Speaker, when I find out what people were doing in 1991, it starts to upset me just a bit. I think I am a little older than some of the folks who were speaking tonight. It being 11:46 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, June 13, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House. The question is on the amendment. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the amendment be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the chair. The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

137 words

Division

Mr. John Nater

Jun/20/22 11:47:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find consent to adopt it on division.

13 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/20/22 11:47:12 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

6 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/20/22 11:47:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I suspect not. I request a recorded division.

10 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/20/22 11:47:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, June 21, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has a point of order.

42 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/20/22 11:47:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it midnight so the House can adjourn.

25 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/20/22 11:47:58 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/20/22 11:48:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pursue a question I put to the Prime Minister on April 6, which was two days after a quite devastating report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It was from working group III, in the sixth assessment report. What that report told me when I read it was that we have less time than I thought, because the timeline for action to avoid going above 1.5°C or even holding to below 2°C was shortened considerably. I asked the Prime Minister, two days later, whether anyone had briefed him on this new documentation from the IPCC and whether he understood how rapidly the window on 1.5°C was closing. Unfortunately, in the Prime Minister's answer, he revealed that he had not been briefed, not possibly. The answer he gave was the usual response, that the government is doing a wonderful job. He said that we have put forward a very comprehensive plan and that we are committed to reducing emissions and will reduce them “by 40% from 2005 levels in the next eight years.” That statement alone confirmed that no one had briefed him, or if they had he chose to reject the advice, because saying that we have a “doable and concrete” plan is not the same thing as saying that it is adequate. I am going to do something I probably should not attempt to do at midnight in this place, which is read from the “Summary for Policymakers”, give a reference to the paragraph and page, and decipher some fairly impenetrable language so if the Prime Minister or his staff should happen to watch this late show, maybe they will understand that they are proposing a plan that does not preserve any hope of holding to 1.5°C. Paragraph C.1, on page 22, working group III, sixth assessment report, from April 4, states, “Global GHG emissions are projected to peak between 2020 and at the latest before 2025 in global modelled pathways that limit warming to 1.5°C...and in those that limit warming to 2°C...and assume immediate action.” I have to explain that the way the IPCC writes is somewhat impenetrable. It is not projecting something that will happen. The sentence would make more sense if it was reversed. What the IPCC is saying is that all the models it has worked through, all the pathways it has found that hold to 1.5°C or 2°C require that “between 2020 and at the latest before 2025” we begin to see a total drop in emissions, so the word “peak” is to suggest that no later than “before 2025” total greenhouse gas emissions must begin to drop and the highest level they ever achieve must be before 2025. This is seriously concerning, because going above 1.5°C or 2°C is not a political target. We cannot negotiate with the atmosphere. The physics and chemistry of the atmosphere tell us, from the best peer-review process of science in the history of the world, the IPCC, that we have to ensure that greenhouse gas levels begin to drop by then or the window on holding on to a livable world will close, and close forever. It does not reopen. I repeat: Going above 1.5°C or 2°C is not a political target. It is about whether global climate systems remain hospitable to our species. If we exceed those, our children may be condemned to an unlivable world.

617 words

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Jun/20/22 11:52:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her remarks. I agree with her that the recent IPCC report is a stark reminder of the impacts of climate change and the urgency for action. As climate impacts intensify, it is only becoming more obvious that moving to a clean, net-zero economy is critical to protecting the well-being of Canadians and communities, and securing Canada's economic prosperity. At COP26, Canada announced it would take additional action to significantly reduce GHG emissions from the oil and gas sector by setting emissions caps. At COP26, Canada also joined over 100 countries in signing the global methane pledge to reduce global anthropogenic methane emissions by 30% by 2030. Canada will lead the way on oil and gas methane by going beyond our current target of 40% to 45% by 2025 to reduce emissions by 75% by 2030. As countries and businesses around the world move rapidly toward net-zero emissions, more ambition is needed today to ensure that Canada is not left behind and can secure a foothold in a low-carbon future. In 2021, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act became law. The act enshrines Canada's commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, establishes Canada's 2030 target as the first key milestone for this path, and ensures a transparent and accountable process in meeting our climate objectives. The 2030 emissions reduction plan, or the ERP, was established on March 29 and is the first of many to come under the act. The ERP is about more than achieving incremental GHG emissions reductions to reach Canada's 2030 target. It is also about putting in place foundational measures to ensure that Canada's future is not only carbon neutral, but that it also makes energy alternatives more affordable and creates new, sustainable job opportunities for workers. The ERP includes a suite of new mitigation measures and strategies. It builds on the foundation set by the pan-Canadian framework and the 2020 strengthened climate plan, and considers the best available science, indigenous knowledge and the advice of the net-zero advisory body. Achieving Canada's climate objectives will be a whole-of-economy and whole-of-society effort. Every economic sector has a role and responsibility to reduce emissions, but the pathway to achieving emissions reduction will look different for each. The 2030 ERP takes into account this reality. It sets out guideposts for each sector to further reduce emissions, and highlights the measures and strategies towards an emissions reduction of 40% below 2005 levels. We are taking action in the electricity sector and will work with provinces and utilities to establish a pan-Canadian grid council to promote clean electricity infrastructure investments. I see I am running short on time, but we are doing many more things, including investing in nature and natural climate solutions to deliver additional emissions reductions, and making significant new investments to support a sustainable future for Canadian farmers. As the hon. member knows, we will be instituting an emissions cap and taking further measures to reduce our emissions.

524 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Jun/20/22 11:56:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I now have to ask the parliamentary secretary, who is an old friend, if he has read the IPCC report, because his answer reflects the usual complacency we hear. The government is doing things. There is no denying there are many programs, but the totality of those programs does not ensure that we can hold to 1.5°C or 2°C. In fact, they do the opposite. Net zero by 2050, by itself, is not science: It is a marketing slogan. What we have to look at is that last year, 619 people in British Columbia died in four days. There were wildfires across the province and floods in November. All that has happened to Canada right now at a 1.1°C global average temperature increase. We are on track for three times more. It is not survivable. Nothing matters if we do not get this right.

154 words

Mr. Terry Duguid

Jun/20/22 11:57:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her passion and advocacy, which I share. I can assure the member that we will continue to work with other levels of government, indigenous peoples, experts, industry, stakeholders and interested Canadians to build on our collective action to drive further reductions and put Canada on that path to net zero.

58 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/20/22 11:57:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, in which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-6, an act respecting regulatory modernization.

45 words

All Topics

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Jun/20/22 11:58:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask members to imagine a runner. He takes his place and is about to run the biggest race of his lifetime, but before the whistle blows, he leans down and ties his shoelaces together so that one shoe is securely fastened to the other shoe. Then the runner deliberately turns around so that his back faces the finish line and sits down. Meanwhile, all his opponents stand at the ready. Their shoes are fastened properly and they face forward. These runners are prepared to race. That is a good way for us to picture the different position the Prime Minister is putting Canada in when there is a looming global food shortage that we are not prepared for. Other countries around the world are ready. They are not punishing producers and they have a plan to tackle the looming crisis. Agriculture is our superpower. It is this hidden economic driver that can not only solve world hunger but could also bring a great deal of prosperity to this nation. However, our producers cannot do this alone. They need the government to work alongside them, not against them, but the Prime Minister fails to recognize this. Not only that, but he has belittled and disrespected this industry by tying its hands behind its back and kicking it aside, all the while expecting it to solve our problems. It started with applying the carbon tax to on-farm fuels, followed by poor trade deals and then a threat of a 30% reduction in fertilizer usage. Now our producers are dealing with sky-high input costs and the new threat of front-of-pack labelling for single-ingredient ground beef. At the very least, all our producers are asking for from the government is clarity. Unlike everyone else, our farmers only get one shot at success every year, and they cannot go into this blindly. In my question, I asked the minister for clarity around the retroactive tariff on Russian fertilizer purchased before March 2. In her answer, she refused to give specifics. Now we are here on June 20, and our farmers are still somewhat in the dark. Fertilizer prices have more than doubled over the winter, and when these are coupled with sky-high input costs, our producers simply cannot afford an extra tariff that was applied on a product purchased before the war even started. Despite what the minister thinks, fertilizer is not some optional add-on; rather, it is a critical tool that is used to boost crop yields and maximize output. Farmers really have no choice but to use it in order to meet the global demand and to make a profit on the crops that they grow. As we look at what is happening across the globe with the war in Ukraine, India placing a ban on the export of wheat and poor yields as a result of the drought in western Canada, it is safe to say that we are on the brink of a global food crisis. If we want to solve this problem with a made-in-Canada solution, the government should work to make inputs less expensive so we can increase crop yields. The minister can do this today by cancelling the tariff on Russian fertilizer. Tonight I will ask again: Will the government do the right thing and remove the retroactive tariff on fertilizer purchased before March 2?

570 words

All Topics

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Jun/21/22 12:01:17 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for raising this important question. I understand the decision to withdraw WTO benefits for Russia and Belarus was taken in the context of pre-existing challenges for the agricultural sector in Canada this spring season. However, I would like to remind the hon. member that the government adopted this trade measure as part of a broad and comprehensive set of sanctions in concert with like-minded global partners to ensure that countries that seriously threaten and breach the rules-based international order cannot benefit from it. Russia's actions, facilitated by Belarus, blatantly violate international law and pose a dire threat to international peace and security. Canada will continue to hold the Russian regime accountable for its attack on the democracy and independence of Ukraine as we stand together with its people. As members know, we announced on March 3 that Russia and Belarus's entitlement to WTO tariff treatment had been removed under the Customs Tariff, resulting in a 35% tariff right applicable to virtually all imports from these countries. However, the order also ensured that goods that were already in transit to Canada on or before March 2 could still benefit from WTO tariff treatment. I would also like to remind the hon. member that customs duties and taxes are paid by importers based on the time of importation of goods and not the date when they are purchased, so it is also important to understand that the 35% tariff for Russian fertilizer is not imposed on farmers, but is paid by importers. In this instance, some importers maintained their purchases from Russia, even after the measure was implemented, while others decided to make other sourcing arrangements. As a result, providing relief from the tariff to importers who maintained their purchases from Russia would be inequitable to those importers who changed their sourcing away from Russia, often incurring greater costs. It would also not translate into reduced costs for many farmers. I can also confirm that in order to preserve the integrity of Canada's Ukraine response measures, the government will not be granting tariff relief for any Russian goods affected by the withdrawal of WTO tariff preferences, including fertilizers. Government officials have already communicated this information to industry stakeholders so that Canadian businesses can take steps to diversify their supply chains away from Russia in the near term. Also, I would like to note that in recognition of the challenges facing the sector, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has amended its advance payments program with a federal loan program guarantee that provides agricultural producers with easy access to low-interest cash advances. Instead of receiving advances in two instalments, producers are now eligible to receive their full 2022 advance immediately when they apply.

471 words

All Topics

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Jun/21/22 12:04:55 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, again, it is backwards hearing it from the parliamentary secretary when he thinks that just because it is paid by importers, somehow farmers are not going to have to pay for it. We all know the importers are going to pass that cost on to the farmer, but the farmer has no means of passing that cost on to anybody else. If the government truly wanted to support farmers, it would scrap the tariff for farmers. Canada is also an outlier on this issue. The G7 countries do not have this kind of tariff because they truly know what it means to support farmers. Supporting farmers and going tough on Russia for its illegal occupation of Ukraine are not exclusive to each other. I call on the minister once again. Let us harness our superpower and use it to address the looming global food crisis. After seven years of working against our farmers, the government has an opportunity to change course. Instead of working against them by making their lives more expensive, let us work alongside our producers. Standing up and saying they are working with the industry is not enough. Our farmers deserve actions and results. Once again, will the government do the right thing, support our farmers and drop the tariff on Russian fertilizer purchased before March 2?

222 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 92